MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2961976848 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v9n4p307

Function of Sound Devices in the Construction of Metaphoric Meaning in Poetry

2019· article· en· W2961976848 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Olga Vishnyakova, Elizaveta Aleksandrovna Vishnyakova, Natalia Viktorovna Sharyshova

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetryMeaning (existential)Context (archaeology)Interpretation (philosophy)ArbitrarinessLinguisticsRelation (database)PhilosophyLiteratureEpistemologyArtComputer scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a study of the relation between the meaning of the words and their phonological features within the poetic context. The article presents a short overview of the existing theories and assumptions in the researched area. Special attention is given to the theory of the arbitrariness of signs and recent studies, suggesting this claim to be incomplete and subject to numerous exceptions. This research is aimed at finding the evidence of metaphorical use of sounds patterns in the poetry of Dylan Thomas. This paper presents a detailed analysis of four poems: “From Love’s First Fever to Her Plague”, “Light Breaks Where No Sun Shines”, “Especially When the October Wind” and “After the Funeral” with a few examples from other poems. The results of the analysis show that sound, being one of the most important elements of poetic texts, is able to obtain a specific semantic meaning of its own but is highly dependent on the context. Interpretation of sound patterns and their expressive potential is crucial for a comprehensive analysis of poetic texts.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207